Given v. Hilton was a United States Supreme Court case that addressed the issue of whether a contract between two parties was valid. The case involved a contract between the plaintiff, Given, and the defendant, Hilton, in which Given agreed to pay Hilton a certain amount of money in exchange for a certain amount of land. Given paid the money, but Hilton refused to transfer the land. Given then sued Hilton for breach of contract. The Supreme Court held that the contract was valid and enforceable. The Court noted that the contract was clear and unambiguous, and that the parties had agreed to the terms of the contract. The Court also noted that the contract was supported by consideration, meaning that each party had given something of value in exchange for the other's promise. The Court held that Given was entitled to the land he had contracted for, and that Hilton was liable for breach of contract. The Court's decision in Given v. Hilton established that contracts are binding and enforceable, and that parties must fulfill their obligations under the terms of the contract. The decision also established that consideration is an important factor in determining the validity of a contract.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Given v. Hilton, arguing that the majority's decision was "not warranted by any principle of law." He argued that a contract between two parties should be enforced according to its terms and conditions, regardless of whether one party had acted unfairly or not. In this case, he felt that the plaintiff had been wronged when his partner refused to pay him for his share of profits from their joint venture. As such, Justice Field believed it was unjust for the defendant to avoid paying what he owed simply because there were no written documents outlining their agreement. Furthermore, Justice Field noted that even if an oral contract could not be proven in court due to lack of evidence or witnesses, it did not mean that one party should escape responsibility for failing to fulfill their obligations under said agreement. Therefore, he concluded by stating his belief that justice demanded both parties abide by whatever verbal promises they made and thus held firm on his dissent against the majority ruling in favor of Defendant Hilton